{"id":120216,"date":"2003-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003"},"modified":"2016-07-15T07:24:20","modified_gmt":"2016-07-15T01:54:20","slug":"cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n\nDated: 11\/04\/2003\n\n\nCoram\n\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN\n\n\nCivil Misc. Appeal No. 1054 of 1994\n\n\n\nThe Kumbakonam Milk Supply\nCooperative Society,\nrepresented by its Secretary.\n\n\n(Cause Title amended-vide Order\ndated 1-7-98 in CMP No.19165\/97).  .. Petitioner\/Appellant.\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n\nThe Regional Director,\nEmployees' State Insurance\nCorporation, Madras-34.  .. Respondent\/Respondent.\n\n\nAppeal against the Order and Decree dated 28-2-94, made in  E.S.I.O.P.No.33\/87\non the file of the District Judge, Thanjavur.\n\n\n!For appellant in both CMAS.     :  Mr.  T.  Susindran\n\n\n^For Respondent                 :   Mr.  G.  Desappan\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.  Sathasivam,J)<\/p>\n<p>Kumbakonam Milk Supply Cooperative Society through its Secretary, aggrieved by<br \/>\nthe order  dated  28-02-1994,  made in E.S.I.O.P.No.  33\/87 on the file of the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, Thanjavur, has filed the above appeal under Section 82 (2)  of<br \/>\nThe Employees&#8217; State Insurance Act, 1948.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   According  to  the  appellant,  it  is  a  society  registered  under the<br \/>\nCo-operative Societies Act and their main object is to purchase milk from  its<br \/>\nmembers and  to  sell  the same.  The said work was being done for the last 45<br \/>\nyears.  While so, on 14-5-85, a memo was issued claiming  Rs.87,101\/-  towards<br \/>\nE.S.I.  contribution  for  the  period between 1-4-79 and 31-12-84.  Again, on<br \/>\n26-5-86 it received another notice  demanding  Rs.1,11,488.40  towards  E.S.I.<br \/>\ncontribution.   It  is further stated that on receipt of the said notices, the<br \/>\nappellant sent a reply stating that it is a society and not an industry,  that<br \/>\nno  manufacturing process is being carried out and that the persons working in<br \/>\nthe society are not employees within the meaning  of  Section  2  (9)  of  the<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217;  State  Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;).<br \/>\nIt is further stated that since their explanation was  not  satisfactory,  the<br \/>\nsociety  filed  E.S.I.O.P.No.33\/87  before the District Court under Section 75<br \/>\n(1) of the Act.  Before the District Court, the Accountant of the Society  was<br \/>\nexamined as P.W.1 and Exs.  P-1 to P-11 were marked in support of their claim.<br \/>\nOn  the  side  of the Employees&#8217; State Insurance Corporation, their Inspectors<br \/>\nwere examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and Exs.  R-1 to R-4  marked  in  support  of<br \/>\ntheir defence.  The learned District Judge, after framing necessary issues and<br \/>\nafter  considering  the evidence, both oral and documentary, and after holding<br \/>\nthat the appellant society is an organisation under the Act, and hence  it  is<br \/>\nliable to pay its contribution, dismissed the O.P., filed by the society.  The<\/p>\n<p>District  Court  also  permitted  the  society to approach the Corporation for<br \/>\nmodification of the quantum, if there is any variation  in  the  contribution.<br \/>\nQuestioning the said award, the society has preferred the above appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  Heard Mr.   T.    Susindran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.  G.<br \/>\nDesappan for respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  Though no substantial question of law was framed by this Court at the time<br \/>\nof admission, the appellant  society  has  raised  the  following  substantial<br \/>\nquestions of law in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>a)  Whether  the  appellant-Society  can be attracted by the provisions of the<br \/>\nState  Employees&#8217;  Insurance  Act,  1948,  in  view  of  the  fact  that   the<br \/>\nAppellant-Society&#8217;s  duty  is  only  to  preserve  the milk purchased from the<br \/>\npurchasers for the purpose of distributing the same to its  customers  and  as<br \/>\nsuch  no  question  of manufacturing process arises, as contemplated under the<br \/>\nprovisions of the said Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>b) Whether in the absence of any transformation of a new product from the milk<br \/>\npreserved by the Appellant-Society, can the  Appellant-Society  be  termed  as<br \/>\n&#8216;factory&#8217;  in  which  manufacturing process is undertaken so as to attract the<br \/>\nprovisions of the State Employees&#8217; State Insurance Act, 1948.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  First we shall refer the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Employees&#8217;  State<br \/>\nInsurance  Act  and  the  Factories Act which are required for the disposal of<br \/>\nthis appeal.  Section 2(9) of the Employees&#8217; State Insurance Act,  1948  reads<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section  2(9)  &#8220;employee&#8221;  means  any  person  employed  for  wages  in or in<br \/>\nconnection with the work of a factory  or  establishment  to  which  this  Act<br \/>\napplies and-&#8230;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 2 (12) &#8220;factory&#8221; means any premises including the precincts thereof-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) whereon ten or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any<br \/>\nday  of  the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing<br \/>\nprocess is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so  carried<br \/>\non, or<\/p>\n<p>(b)  whereon twenty or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on<br \/>\nany day  of  the  preceding  twelve  months,  and  in  any  part  of  which  a<br \/>\nmanufacturing  process  is  being  carried  on  without the aid of power or is<br \/>\nordinarily so carried on,<\/p>\n<p>but does not include a mine subject top the operation of the Mines  Act,  1952<br \/>\nor a railway running shed;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 2 (14AA) &#8220;manufacturing process&#8221; shall have the meaning assigned to it<br \/>\nin the Factories Act, 1948;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 2 (k) of The Factories Act, 1948 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section 2 (k)&#8221;manufacturing process&#8221; means any process for-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) xx xx\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) xx xx\n<\/p>\n<p>(vi)  preserving  or storing any article in cold storage; ( inserted by Act 94<br \/>\nof 1976).\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  Even according to the appellant-Society, though they employed 24  persons,<br \/>\nexcept two who are working in cold storage, the others, namely, 20 persons are<br \/>\nmainly working outside the premises.  According to the Society, their main job<br \/>\nis to procure  milk from the members.  The documents-Exs.  P-1 to P-7 produced<br \/>\nby the Society would go to show that the appellant society is a factory within<br \/>\nthe definition of Section 2 (12) of the Employees&#8217; State Insurance  Act.    As<br \/>\nper  Section  2  (14AA)  of  the  Act,  &#8216;manufacturing process&#8217; shall have the<br \/>\nmeaning assigned to it in the Factories Act, 1948.    Section  2  (k)  of  the<br \/>\nFactories Act, 1948 defines the expression &#8220;manufacturing process&#8221; and we have<br \/>\nalready  referred to the insertion of Clause (vi)of Section 2 (k) by Act 94 of<br \/>\n1976 which makes it clear that preserving  or  storing  any  article  in  cold<br \/>\nstorage is  deemed  to  be  a manufacturing process.  Though it is stated that<br \/>\nonly two persons are being engaged in cold storage and others  are  messengers<br \/>\nand  their  main work is to procure milk from its members, in the light of the<br \/>\ndefinition of the words &#8220;employee&#8221;, &#8220;factory&#8221;, and &#8220;manufacturing process&#8221;, as<br \/>\nreferred to in the Employees State Insurance Act, and the Factories Act and in<br \/>\nthe light of the details furnished in the documents produced by  the  society,<br \/>\nwe  hold that the appellant society is an establishment which comes within the<br \/>\nambit of Employees&#8217; State Insurance Act and that the  learned  District  Judge<br \/>\nwas  perfectly  right  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion,  confirming the action<br \/>\ninitiated by the Employees&#8217; State Insurance Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>7, Learned counsel for the  appellant  very  much  relied  on  a  decision  of<br \/>\nMaharajan, J., in <a href=\"\/doc\/1240694\/\">Madurai  Co-op.   Milk Supply Union v.  R.S.I.  Corporation,<\/a><br \/>\nreported in Volume 39 F.J.R.  452; and another decision of Govardhan, J.    in<br \/>\nC.M.A.No.  766  of 1986 dated 21-11-1994.  Since the cases dealt with in those<br \/>\ndecisions were decided prior to insertion of sub-Clause (vi) of Clause (k)  of<br \/>\nSection 2 of the Factories Act, we are of the view that both the decisions are<br \/>\nnot applicable to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  would  contend that as most of the<br \/>\nemployees had gone away and are not available as on date, the direction of the<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217; State Insurance Corporation to deposit the  contribution  inclusive<br \/>\nof the  unavailable  employees  cannot  be  sustained.   In this regard, it is<br \/>\nrelevant to refer a Division Bench decision of  this  Court  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/156688302\/\">Madras  Govt.<br \/>\nServants Co-op.  Society Ltd., v.  Employees&#8217; State Insurance Corpn.,<\/a> reported<br \/>\nin 1996  II  M.L.J.    4  47,  wherein  this  Court, while considering certain<br \/>\nprovisions of the Employees&#8217; State Insurance Act, 1948, has held that if there<br \/>\nis systematic economic or commercial activity, it  will  be  shop  within  the<br \/>\nmeaning of Section 1 (9) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.  <a href=\"\/doc\/751795\/\">In E.K.    Haj  Mohammadmeera  Sahib  and  Sons v.  The Regional Director,<br \/>\nEmployees State Insurance Corporation (D.D),<\/a>  reported  in  2003-1-L.W.669,  a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Court has held that even in a case where the person, to<br \/>\nwhom  wages  was  paid  and  on  which the contribution is sought, is not in a<br \/>\nposition to avail the  benefits  provided  under  the  Act,  nevertheless  the<br \/>\nemployer is  not  relieved  from  the obligation to pay the contribution.  The<br \/>\nDivision Bench further held that the benefit of the contribution would  become<br \/>\npart  of  a fund available for use for the benefit of workmen who are eligible<br \/>\nto claim the benefit under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1590128\/\">In  Employees   State   Insurance   Corporation   v.      Hotel   Kalpaka<br \/>\nInternational,reported<\/a>  in  AIR  1993 Supreme Court 1530, Their Lordships have<br \/>\nheld that:  (para 27)<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;27.  It is equally fallacious to conclude that because the employees had gone<br \/>\naway there is no liability to contribute.  It has to be  carefully  remembered<br \/>\nthat  the  liability  to contribute arose from the date of commencement of the<br \/>\nestablishment and is a continuing liability till the closure.  The very object<br \/>\nof establishing a common fund under Section 26 for  the  benefit  of  all  the<br \/>\nemployees will again be thwarted if such a construction is put.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Both  the decisions referred to above make it clear that even if the employees<br \/>\nhad  gone  away,  the  liability  to  contribute  arises  from  the  date   of<br \/>\ncommencement  of the establishment and it is a continuing liability till it is<br \/>\nclosed.  Accordingly, we reject the contrary argument of the  learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   The  Employees&#8217;  State  Insurance  Act  is  a  piece  of  social welfare<br \/>\nlegislation enacted primarily with the object of providing certain benefits to<br \/>\nemployees in case of sickness, maternity and employment  injury  and  also  to<br \/>\nmake provisions for certain other matters incidental thereto.  In an enactment<br \/>\nof  this  nature,  the  endeavour  of  the  Court  should  be to interpret the<br \/>\nprovisions liberally in favour of the persons for whose benefit the  enactment<br \/>\nhas been  made.    In  the light of the statutory provisions of the Employees&#8217;<br \/>\nState Insurance Act, 1948 and  the  Factories  Act,  1948,  coupled  with  the<br \/>\nfactual  details  available  in  the  case  on  hand, we do not want to take a<br \/>\ndifferent view than that taken by the District Judge,  and  hence  we  are  in<br \/>\nagreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge.  There<br \/>\nis no merit in the appeal.  Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law<br \/>\nreferred to  above  are answered in the negative.  Consequently, the appeal is<br \/>\ndismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(P.S.J.,) (Z.H.J.,)<\/p>\n<p>R.B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:- Yes<br \/>\nInternet:- Yes<br \/>\nTo:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1) The District Judge, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n<p>2) The Section Officer, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court (Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 11\/04\/2003 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1054 of 1994 The Kumbakonam Milk Supply Cooperative Society, represented [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-15T01:54:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T01:54:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1678,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003\",\"name\":\"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T01:54:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-15T01:54:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T01:54:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003"},"wordCount":1678,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003","name":"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T01:54:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cause-title-amended-vide-order-vs-the-regional-director-on-11-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"(Cause Title Amended-Vide Order vs The Regional Director on 11 April, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120216\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}